1
FEMINIST UNDERSTANDINGS OF PRODUCTIVITY
by Patricia E. (Ellie) Perkins
Associate
Professor
Faculty of Environmental Studies
York
University
North York, Ontario M3J 1P3
CANADA
Telephone: (416) 736-2000 ext. 22632
Fax:
(416)
736-5679
E-mail:
esperk@yorku.ca
Paper presented at the conference
“Feminist Utopias: Redefining Our Projects”
November
9-11,
2000
University of Toronto
Toronto,
Canada
ABSTRACT: The concept of productivity, meaning output per unit of input, is at once general and
specific. Economists have used productivity as a very specific measure, denominated in dollars, which
shows the output of a produced or consumer good per unit of labour or capital used in the
production process. However, productivity can also be understood more broadly as a fundamental human
value which denotes optimal use of the natural environment for individual, social and cultural benefit.
This involves questioning, testing and replacing many of the static assumptions of the neoclassical
economics paradigm: What are the significant inputs and outputs? Can their cost or value be measured in
dollars? What additional, related outputs and inputs are silent, "external", or ignored in the production and
consumption process? How do improvements in productivity take place, and how can they be measured
and fostered? Feminist economists critique the exclusion of many important aspects of production and
reproduction from most economic equations; the discussion on alternative ways of valuing inputs and
inclusionary approaches to the question of productivity is well advanced in feminist debates. Building
on recent research in ecological economics, feminist economics, community economic development,
political ecology, and social/cultural studies, this paper explores and articulates alternative
conceptualizations of productivity. The paper's intent is to re-examine the capitalist concept of
"productivity" which Maria Mies calls "the most formidable hurdle in our struggle to come to an
understanding of women's labour" (Mies, Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale, p. 48).
2
FEMINIST UNDERSTANDINGS OF PRODUCTIVITY
I. Introduction
The concept of “productivity” encapsulates a number of feminist concerns about economic
analysis. In measuring “productivity”, which is the output of something per unit input of
something else, an analyst zeroes in on what’s “important” for the economy by choosing which
output and which input are in focus. Labour productivity, for example, means how many
widgets a worker can produce per hour or per day. Capital productivity is a measure of how
many widgets can be made per dollar invested in the widget plant. For feminist economists who
are familiar with the invisible and unpaid inputs which undergird all kinds of production
processes, the shortcoming of most types of productivity analysis is that these fundamental but
ignored inputs are usually left out. Also omitted by definition, in traditional productivity
measures, are the unplanned, unexpected and/or pernicious outputs which accompany production
processes (for example, of widgets) and which sap their overall benefits for society.
As part of the work of constructing a feminist vision and understanding of economies, economics
and economic change, I believe it is important to grapple with the concept of productivity, for
several reasons. First, “productivity” is a key economic indicator, a shorthand measure which is
widely used in policy processes and in business decisions. A feminist productivity measure
which captures the long-term social and ecological value of economic activity (instead of the
costs of its immediate inputs compared to the market price of its outputs) would be a powerful
tool for economic planners and political decision-makers. Such an indicator would allow
governments, firms and community organizations to compare projects according to their long-
term benefits and overall costs, for women and men and for society as a whole, making possible
an expanded and comprehensive picture of economic activity.
Second, exploring the concept of “productivity” provides a convenient entree into many issues of
concern for feminist economists, such as unpaid work, “caring” labour, community solidarity,
ecological impacts of production, valuation, and measurement questions. For popular education
and demystification purposes, a study of productivity with all its implications gives an
interesting and somewhat manageable slant on a wide range of feminist and economic issues.
Third, “productivity” implies and depends upon value-judgements about the overall economy
and its change, so it is a political concept as well as an economic one, and it links material and
social factors with cultural determinants and understandings of value, or what is important in
society. Both for purposes of theoretical discussion and for intervention and activism, these
interrelationships are crucial.
Thermodynamic analysis makes it clear that getting more and more output from the same amount
of physical input is an impossibility; feminist economists similarly speak of the “global crisis in
3
social reproduction” and the need for “recognizing and respecting limits” to bring about
“subsistence-oriented women’s liberation” (Folbre, 1994:254; Bennholdt-Thomsen and Mies,
1999:203). However, economic growth requires dynamism, economic injustices certainly need
to be rectified, and the easiest democratic way to bring about redistribution is in the context of
economic growth. Can a feminist productivity analysis help to handle these contradictions?
The recent ecological economics and political ecology literature is filled with views on
productivity and how to reframe it. Some ecological economists are calling for a re-substitution
of labour for capital in the production process, as a way of staving off unemployment-related
social disintegration (Jackson, 1996:165-170). Others point out that “sustainable productivity”
means an integration of social production with global ecological processes, an inherently cultural
dynamic which requires integration with local conditions, values and knowledge (Leff, 1995:91-
97). Thermodynamic theory offers the insight that it is order in material things (which is created
using energy and information) which generates use-value for humans; Elmar Altvater redefines
use-value to mean “lower entropy with higher order” and notes that “economic and social
systems call for fundamental reorganization when production geared to exchange-value is only
capable of creating use-values with a limited capacity to satisfy needs.” (Altvater, 1993:228,
230).
Building on but in contrast to such ungendered approaches to productivity, this paper outlines
some starting-points for a specifically feminist standpoint on “productivity”. The following
section discusses four principles for measuring and defining productivity through feminist eyes.
The conclusion to the paper offers some ideas about where this line of analysis leads in terms of
research, policy, empirical work, and activism.
II. Feminist Perspectives on Productivity
What kind of productivity is of interest? This is a crucial initial question, and one which
demands both gender analysis and the full participation of all members of society to determine.
Total factor productivity, or the output of all goods derived from all inputs in the economy, is
one place to start. For particular purposes, however, more specific outputs and inputs may be
chosen; I believe the basic requirements for a feminist approach to defining productivity remain
the same whatever the level of focus.
For any productivity measure to be a true reflection of output per unit input, the value of the
output in question must be balanced against the costs of the inputs required to produce it; all the
inputs should be included and counted. In addition, the value of any negative outputs which
accompany the “good” which is in focus should also be subtracted, since without the production
process these “bads” would not have been produced.
Feminist analysis has much to say about such components and products of economic processes
which are often termed “externalities”; in many cases they are omitted precisely because they
relate to “women’s work” (Ferber and Nelson, 1993). There is a long discussion among
4
socialist feminists about the Marxist distinction between production and reproduction, and the
impossibility of separating the two kinds of work, especially in subsistence economies (Mellor,
1997:171). Maria Mies states, “ It is thus necessary, regarding the concept of the productivity of
labour, to reject its narrow definition and to show that labour can only be productive in the sense
of producing surplus value as long as it can tap, extract, exploit, and appropriate labour which is
spent in the production of life, or subsistence production, which is largely non-wage labour
mainly done by women” (Mies, 1986:47). In this sense, “female productivity is the precondition
of male productivity and of all further world-historic development” (Mies, 1986:58).
Because of problems with market valuation processes, feminist productivity analysis must
employ or develop a way of valuing goods and services which allows comparisons across
material units without violence. “Discourse-based valuation”, discussed below, is a promising
and increasingly-used method for doing this.
Some of the information needed to conduct feminist productivity calculations is difficult to
obtain with current data-gathering structures and policies, so special attention must be paid to the
data requirements of feminist productivity calculations and how to meet them.
The following sections discuss each of these points in more detail.
A. Incorporate all inputs to the production process.
Feminist economists critique the exclusion of many important aspects of production and
reproduction from most economic equations; the discussion on alternative ways of valuing inputs
and inclusionary approaches to the question of productivity is relatively well advanced in
feminist debates (Waring, 1989; Folbre, 1994; Nelson, 1996; Mellor, 1997). There is thus a
wealth of literature on the ways in which women’s contributions to economic processes have
been ignored, undervalued, unpaid, discounted and otherwise left out of economic analysis.
Such contributions include the socialization of children and teaching of cooperation skills, health
care for family members who are engaged in paid work outside the home, housework and
household maintenance, cooking and food provision, community and social maintenance work,
and many other jobs which can be understood in a thermodynamic sense as using energy to
reverse entropy (Perkins,2000). Realistic estimates of the value of environmental and ecological
inputs to production should also be included – for example, clean air and water, ozone-layer
protection, soils – even if they are unvalued or undervalued in markets.
B. Incorporate all outputs of the production process.
Production of “goods” usually entails producing some “bads” as well – pollution, wastes and
other by-products. Other negative externalities of production processes include worker stress,
ill-health, social inequities, community breakdown and other social by-products (Schor, 199 5;
Hayden, 1999) which it then often becomes “women’s work” to address or mend (Perkins,
1996). Valuing and incorporating these negative outputs of production in productivity analysis –
which will tend to reduce the net value of the overall output – is a crucial part of a feminist
5
approach to productivity.
C. Use discourse-based valuation.
The method used to compare quantities of different things – pollution, widgets, hours of work,
stress, whatever the output or input of interest – affects the practicability and political
acceptability of the analysis as well as its bottom line. Economic studies which leave out crucial
variables because they are hard to quantify or attach dollar-values to, often find the studies
sidelined because they don’t address situations realistically. Environmental economists have
grappled for decades with the question of how to value pollution and unwanted outputs; the
shortcomings of valuation techniques such as “contingent valuation analysis” (using hypothetical
studies or questionnaires) and “hedonic pricing” (using market-valued goods as proxies to attach
dollar values to externalities) are well known (Field and Olewiler, 1994:130-174). Ecological
economists have begun to propose using “discourse-based valuation”, in a process which brings
together all people or groups with an interest in the political decision for which a valuation of
various goods and bads is sought; by discussing their various perspectives on the valuation
issues, they arrive at a common understanding of the factors which can lead to political outcomes
which are acceptable to all (O’Hara, 1996). Valuation thus becomes a step along the way
towards political consensus.
A feminist approach to productivity requires that any necessary common-denominator valuation
process go way beyond market valuation to encompass the needs and views of all. Discourse-
based valuation is one promising way of incorporating valuation, as a way of arriving at
commonalities, into political-economic decision processes and reducing markets’ gender biases
(Ferber and Nelson, 1993).
D. Gather the necessary data.
Feminist economists have often discovered that the empirical data needed to test or investigate
their hypotheses are not available; government statistical agencies often have other priorities
(MacDonald, 1995). Part of the work of building an inclusive and green productivity measure is
to start from scratch by collecting the types of data which are required to construct a realistic
picture of productivity. Statistics Canada’s inclusion of a household work survey in the 1996
census is an example of the kinds of data-collection initiatives which are needed. Other
examples include emissions and waste generation by production facilities, worker and
community health data, and information on the connections between child-rearing, community
resilience, cooperation skills, and people’s initiative, ability to work with others, and creativity.
III. Conclusion
For academics, the implications of feminist productivity analysis are both demanding and
exciting. We need to continue to press for the types of data and information we need to develop
these ideas further; we must also construct and test valuation techniques which allow generalities
6
to be built from specificities without violence and with respect for the politics of diversity.
Theoretical work in feminist ecological economics is advancing the agenda of naming and
quantifying gender-based and ecological ‘externalities’ and previously-invisible inputs to
economic processes, and this work is crucial.
The blinkers of traditional economic concepts and their unquestioned use in policy circles will
not be removed, however, without pressure from activists. Feminists, environmentalists, free-
trade opponents and community development workers, among many others, can find much
common cause in the work of insisting on the need for local political processes which give a
voice to, name, and actualize diverse realities. Technological advances make possible the
generation and exchange of information to facilitate this; communities and political groups need
to insist that their interests be prioritized.
These preliminary thoughts about a more holistic approach to “productivity” underscore the need
for more holistic political processes as well. The unveiling of ‘homo economicus’ (Ferber and
Nelson, 1993) and the deepening of ‘productivity’ are both parts of a much longer-term project:
the construction of more equitable and less patriarchal societies.
7
REFERENCES
Altvater, Elmar (1993). The Future of the Market. London/New York: Verso.
Bennholdt-Thomsen, Veronika, and Maria Mies (1999). The Subsistence Perspective.
Lond/New York: Zed.
Field, Barry C. and Nancy D. Olewiler (1994). Environmental Economics: First Canadian
Edition. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
Ferber, Marianne, and Julie Nelson (1993). Beond Economic Man: Feminist Theory and
Economics. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
Folbre, Nancy (1994). Who Pays for the Kids? Gender and the Structures of Constraint.
London/New York: Routledge.
Hayden, Anders (1999). Sharing the Work, Sparing the Planet: Work Time, Consumption, and
Ecology. Toronto: Between the Lines.
Jackson, Tim (1996). Material Concerns: Pollution, Profit and Quality of Life. London/New
York: Routledge.
Leff, Enrique (1995). Green Production: Toward an Environmental Rationality. New
York/London: Guilford Press.
MacDonald, Martha (1995). “Feminist Economics: From Theory to Research.” Canadian
Journal of Economics, vol. 28 no. 1, February.
Mellor, Mary (1997). Feminism and Ecology. New York: New York University Press.
Mies, Maria (1998). Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the
International Division of Labour. London/New York: Zed Books.
Nelson, Julie (1996). Feminism, Objectivity and Economics. London/New York: Routledge.
O’Hara, Sabine (1996). “Discursive Ethics in Ecosystems Valuation and Environmental Policy”.
Ecological Economics, Vol. 19, No.2, 95-107.
Perkins, Patricia E. (1996). “Building communities to limit trade: following the example of
women’s initiatives,” Alternatives, Vol. 22, No. 1, January/February, pp. 10-15.
Perkins, Patricia E. (2000) “Equity, economic scale, and the role of exchange in a sustainable
economy.” In F. Gale (ed.), Nature, Production, Power: Approaches to Ecological Political
8
Economy. New York: Edward Elgar.
Schor, Juliet (1995). “Can the North Stop Consumption Growth? Escaping the Cycle of Work
and Spend.” In V. Bhaskar and Andrew Glyn (eds.), The North, the South, and the
Environment: Ecological Constraints and the Global Economy (London: Earthscan).
Waring, Marilyn (1988). If Women Counted. London/New York: Harper and Row.
Ellie Perkins teaches Environmental and Ecological Economics in the Faculty of Environmental
Studies at York University and participates in local environmental work in the Riverdale area of
Toronto. She formerly taught economics in Mozambique, and worked as a policy advisor for the
Ontario Ministry of the Environment.